I think the next time someone asks me whether I think Saddam should have been removed from power, my answer will be a simple “no.”
I might be completely naive in thinking this, but the escalating cost, the death toll on both sides, and the psychological effects this war has had seem a whole lot worse than the alternative. We supposedly went into this war to get rid of a preemptive threat – but that’s why any government attacks another government, because they think the other is a threat… and we did go into Iraq to remove the government and not just some terrorists, right?
I truly believe that people will eventually reflect on the whole debacle and actually proclaim, even in the media, that they believe the world was a safer place when Saddam was in power. I think it’s still “too soon” to have such an unpopular view, but really… we’ve just screwed up so bad.
it’s not too soon, i’ve had similar views from day 1
Well, according to my political science teacher at COM last year, we (meaning the bush admin) invaded Iraq in order to prevent Iraqi oil from being sold in eruos instead of US dollars, which would have had to effect of devaluing the dollar, and also to basically prove to our allies (mostly europe) that we are still the top dog. There was more, but that’s about all I remember.
There are a myriad of other issues at hand, but honestly those two are the biggest reasons. I think its worth noting though, that one of the “miscellaneous” reasons was to depose the despot.
The US govt. planned to invade Iraq/remove Saddam Hussein from power long before the threat of OPEC countries switching to the Euro was ever on our minds.
JESUS IS SERVING IN THE MARINES RIGHT NOW JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY THIS STUFF YOU AMERICA HATING ACLU HIPPIE!!!!!!!!!!!
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/peter_beinart_w.html
skip to the last question for the important part :3
I’d actually seen this. I forgot the answer to his question, though.
In all fairness, hindsight is 20/20.
Now I know a lot of people were against the war from the beginning–you were one of them, if I remember correctly–but honestly I don’t think even the naysayers really predicted the debacle that this whole mess has turned into, aside from a general “this won’t end well” feeling.
I’m not going to pretend that dethroning Saddam was one of the primary reasons we went over there, so much as it was icing on the delicious cake. But even if you think that the costs outweigh the benefits (which I would agree with), you can’t really argue that he wasn’t quite the most benevolent of leaders. We just didn’t really plan too far ahead. America was acting in its best interest, in the interest of national security (not global)–it was a big risk that could have paid off huge, but instead blew up in our faces.
It’s good to see you using the word “we”, though.
…honestly I don’t think even the naysayers really predicted the debacle that this whole mess has turned into…
F’real? I think a lot of people saw that it would be a quagmire from a mile away. There was tremendous, widespread, global opposition to the war for that reason among others. I find articles predicting/worrying about/advocating protracted conflict ending with a “three state solution” going all the way back to November of 2003.
This is actually getting off-topic, into a debate that I couldn’t really win anyway.
My main point is that, though many spoke out against the war, its unfair to say that the world is better with Saddam in power. He was a terrible man and an awful leader. The world is better without him, and Iraq should be better off without him as well; we just fucked up big time when we assumed that “Once the bad man is gone, everything should work out just fine!”
As much as it’s nice to say that Saddam was a bad man and it’s good that he’s been removed from power, it’s like… like okay have you seen the movie Aladdin.
And Abu is in the Cave of Wonders and he takes the big jewel from the statue. He’s got the big jewel, right? But then the entire cave turns into a pit of lava and he and Aladdin are going to die. And then they’re trapped in the pit. And a fucking GENIE saves them.
Well hey you know. It’s nice that Abu got the giant jewel. You can’t argue that the big giant jewel is an awesome jewel which is probably really expensive. But you just fucked shit up.
Fun analogy, let’s see if I can work with that…
Aladdin and co. was supposed to just get the lamp. That’s the only way to prevent the cave from closing with lava and shit (uh… right? It’s been a while). But they fucked up, did it the wrong way, and paid heavily for it.
If they had done it the right way–maybe planned ahead a little better–they could have just strolled on out with the lamp. The Genie made Agrabah a better place in the end; true love was found and an evil advisor taken out. So it’s good that the lamp was taken.
They just got greedy and messed up the whole operation.
As totally accurate in every way as it is, I’m not going to extend that metaphor further.
The scary thing is that we don’t know, can’t know, that whatever order will impose itself on the territory formerly known as Iraq will be better than Saddam’s autocracy. And we can’t know how big the ripple effect from our actions as regards other great powers and the struggle for control over diminishing energy resources might be. I won’t argue that Saddam didn’t suck, because he way sucked, but who knows what’s gonna go down now. It may very well suck worse.
My analogy was basically showing that there are a lot of obvious things we want to get rid of in the world. But there’s usually a really good reason why we haven’t gotten rid of it.
I was actually serious about it being accurate.
Yeah it was a pretty kickass analogy
Yeah but he’s a GENIE
yes
but the next time, i don’t know if i could have said it before. hindsight blahblah ok